American Dream » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:56 am wrote:"
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it". I cite this truism of New Age thought in sober recognition of the reality that various opinions I hold do create sparks here.
Was this written by a machine? Honestly, no human being I know converses like this. None. The first sentence bears no relation whatsoever to the second. What the hell were you asking for? What is this even supposed to mean?
My strategy of adaptation has included posting mostly article, trying not to add any commentary and to emphasize focused threads which no one has to read if they don't want to. I think it's the best I can do, considering.
Your "strategy of adaptation" (sic) is a strategy of carefully-maintained tension; in the increasingly-threadbare guise of a leftist, you are seeing just exactly how many verbal atrocities you can get away with and for how long. You don't just "strike sparks", you drop verbal bombs on innocent and honest people. Having bombarded Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett, Julian Assange and now Robert Fisk with ordure, your very latest stunt is to accuse Cynthia McKinney of being a crypto-fascist.
It seems that the reality that it's often the content (in an ideological sense)- not the question of it violating any R.I. agreements- which makes some people unhappy is very rarely mentioned.
Damn right it's the content, as well as the form. Your warmongering pseudleft ideology is deeply repugnant to me and to nearly everyone on this board, as is your cowardly refusal to stand up and take responsibility for the tons of second-hand shit you defile this board with, day in day out, ad nauseam. Whenever confronted with
the words you have chosen to post, your weaselish strategy is to say "It wasn't me who said it, it was him! I might and I might not agree with what he said! I just posted it here! Stop
bullying me for an answer!"
Again: No honest human being I have ever met carries on like that. No one who is speaking and acting in good faith behaves so irresposnibly and evasively. No one. So I draw the unavoidable conclusion from that.
This is a key point and one that deserves far greater acknowledgment as I don't think it's fundamentally a question of obeying any particular rules, be they new or old.
For you it's a question of being extremely careful never (or rarely) to break any official rules while trampling on the spirit of this Discussion Board and its founder every single day, several times a day.
I think it's much more about my view of the world, that I see some confusions and conspiracies within the conspiracy world- where others may find some of the beliefs they are most deeply attached to.
There is no such thing as "the conspiracy world", you inveretrate and shameless stupidifier of all language, all thought and all
discussion on this board. "Conspiracy theory" is a reactionary weaponised term invented and popularised by your CIA in association with your spooky corporate media and now by those spooks' legions of tireless boosters and cheerleaders online, such as you.
MacCruiskeen » Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:08 pm wrote:Jamey Hecht:
THE TERM ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY’
This phrase is among the tireless workhorses of establishment discourse. Without it, disinformation would be much harder than it is. “Conspiracy theory” is a trigger phrase, saturated with intellectual contempt and deeply anti-intellectual resentment. It makes little sense on its own, and while it’s a priceless tool of propaganda, it is worse than useless as an explanatory category.
http://www.911inquiry.org/Presentations/JameyHecht.htm
Do you agree or disagree with Jamey Hecht? As ever, it is completely pointless to ask you a straight question and expect an honest reply. You will whinge of being bullied if you condescend to reply at all.